10 thoughts on “Quantum 50”

“Civic religion” fits in with the “how good are we” spirit that seems to be widespread in society as a whole. The rush to help when it’s trendy to do so, the self-congratulation even.

Whatever things we ought to do as Christians, should we feel proud of doing these things? Unashamed definitely. Humbled that we are not under the sort of persecution felt elsewhere. Privileged that we can actually do something about others suffering.

Good to hear mention of those left behind in Syria – seven million internally displaced and pretty much forgotten about.

Jeremy Corbyn is a useless leader of the Labour Party (especially if one defines a “leader” as someone who people want to follow). But on the issue of bombing Syria I think he is right, although possibly not for the right reasons.

I suspect he will whip his party and most of the dissident MPs will cave in (too fearful of being de-selected). The SNPs will not support the Government so I think it is unlikely that Cameron will get his clear majority and so will not hold the vote. I am writing this on Monday morning before any announcement is made).

However Corbyn’s mishandling of his party over this matter will push the opposition into even further disarray and this is very unhealthy for democracy – Governments need strong opposition to hold them to account.

(Aside: If the SNP sweep the board in the Scottish Parliament elections next year who will hold them to account? Is Scotland about to become a “one party” state?)

I think this Quantum completely ignores the REASON that so many governors are against bringing in refugees. This immigration plan is being rammed down there throats by Obama, and it’s unconstitutional. After all, some of the bombers in the Paris attack were “Refugees.” I think one solution to the problem would be bringing in only women and children, which would only be 10% of the refugees. It’s a tricky situation, but I am right there with my governor and all the others who are standing up for American safety.

How many refugees in the US have committeed acts of terror? Are women not capable of being suicide bombers? Why is taking in refugees ‘unconstitutional’? Since when did the US constitution forbid refugees?

I did not say that refugees in the Us had committed acts of terror in the U.S., I actually said Paris. However, considering ISIS has pledged to infiltrate the refugee situation, it seems prudent to at least have an accurate mechanisms for vetting these “refugees,” and since no such mechanism exists there is really no solution.
The idea that women could be suicide bombers is obviously a valid one, but women have only constituted 4% of suicide bombings from 1981-2006. Also, I am simply trying to offer a compromise by no means am I saying that this would be a perfect solution.But, It seems like a smarter one to me.
The constitution does not forbid refugees to say that would be absurd. However, certain powers are granted to the executive branch in the constitution, none of which mention the executive power to force refugees on governors. It should be up to the states. Please see the tenth amendment.

One person came through the refugee route? How many come through business routes? Should we ban business men? Refusing refugees because of fear is profoundly unChristian. What about those who are fleeing from ISIS? What about Syrian Christians? Turn them all away?

I do not want to turn away the refugees. The problem is that there is no credible way to vet the refugees. I would not be so worried about the issue if ISIS had not pledged to take advantage of it. I don’t want to turn away Christians or Jews. I would like to have them as refugees, but the only refugees that have been admitted to the U.S. are Muslim. And, considering I am Jewish I am not that concerned about being “unChristian.”
I am in favor of resettlement and financial assistance to refugees, just not bringing possible terrorists into this country.